tv [untitled] December 29, 2013 1:30pm-2:01pm PST
because we do understand them made me think we need to intensity some clear applications to submit those in a consistent way. as the 7 year sitting here do we have for the first time from the secretary see that that we indeed have a say open appendix a. this was not given to us before so thank you for doing that. i ask the department and the director knows how can we be more clear. we're here to be basically working with you to deliver something that you spend a lot of time deliberating with with a large staff hours and hours but we get information that we can't properly support you it then gets sent back. i went through simply i or like
a good student through the 9 places in the departments reducing instructions to the applicant and most succinctly under the plans guidelines and what i did because we have the add function in our word document i made red boxes to consistentlyly insert that the plans submittal guidelines should be the common reference for all 59 places. you have liquor one governing document probably the first thing people go to and i want to put in some consistency. one is to use digital photocopy.
so that was i think the department accepted that and the next one had something to be with 3-d documents and it didn't submit an undue hardship to anyone and simulates the 3-d imagine because the tools are inexpensive. they're available to anyone for people who have good looking. there's some other minor subtle things but to my question i don't see the recommendations picked up in the discussion and i want to hear each commissioners comments to my comments relative to the matter.
i suffer like i do twho who the fact finding isn't there. commissioner antonini >> if i'm reading this incorrigible on item d under the appendix i guess. of our rules. and it says standard cases and on number 2 of standard cases it talks about the submittals when commissioner moore was asking for and c talks about digital affirmatives of the conditions 3-d digital reverend. that's what our rules are part of >> those are actually added directly as a result of our dismissing commissioner moore. >> however, when i pull up the link those suggestions are not
show that their appearing here but not tracked through the documents for which i apply. so since you were not give a copy of what i submitted i copied for you in color what i sent you and left it with - just a copy of the planned submittals so you can look through those while we talk. this is actually a simple thing and doesn't really undermine or change anything about what the department is doing it's a matter of referencing and getting a little bit more of the depth in tracking the
consistency >> if i may the document that was forwarded to you all that's on our website and was created open february 2012 doesn't include a section for section this was one of our southerners and includes a reference to rendering and 3-d rendering and references discretionary review cases in them. so i'm not clear as to what else you want added. >> on the first page right under site permit in that paragraph the language will add all other planning applications that maybe reviewed by the planning commission. >> and if i turn the pages it goes into specifics about that.
that particular package and subsequent pages have not been exchanged >> understood. >> i think i was asked the question for commissioner moore but i did have some other comments. it looks although we have the basis of what commissioner moore wants but i not be up for addresses to clarify it further. the other question i had in terms of noticing. the looks quite clear so far as the noticing. my understanding is the commission receives a packet at the time at the time the commission receives the packet that same information is put on the website for the planning
department correct >> you receive for example, if there's a hearing next week approximately 3:00 p.m. the hard packet is placed down stairs at the fourth floor. and the electronic version once the calendar is finalized on friday is released that's posted to the web and direct links from that agenda are available for the public >> you're saying virtually the same time we get the hardcopy packets it's available down stairs for the public even in advance of the electronic production of the data? >> generally speaking yes, but within several hours or no later the next day open friday when
the agenda is finalized. >> and there's many times we loaf our commission hearing early we don't get our material. i have no problem jesus christ that between the meeting and we're calling those major cases there are a it week period of time but technically i don't see it's that difficult to read and make a decision on those materials. and it's very clear also the other thing it says if standard cases under for this as it deals with 309 continual uses and 3210 west and thirty 9 exceptions but
it's true one week in advance the packet is due to the commission and two weeks at the discretion of the planning commission officers. i would think in if the public feels strongly about an item they certainly should contact the commission officers and decrees their interest in having the noticing being longer. many of the hot tops are tracked months ahead of time so there's no surprise but if they feel it's important they be given the two weeks notice the public can ca ask and if unify members of the publics i'm sure the officers and director will do what they can to add to the period of time. those are just standard cases.
and it clearly points to the fact that a major project or major forgotten policies or presentations are two weeks in advance of the hearing. seems like this is a reasonable amount of mogz. you can only digest information and we have enough materials for the next week where there's eirs it's nice to have the extra week to work on them but you can't go two which beyond two weeks. i'm happy with that part and the changes. i will wait to hear from other commissioners and particularly commissioner moore but i'm happy as i see them >> commissioner sugaya.
>> yes. to address the jazz concerns i believe the submittals don't apply to the requests. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. so on the issue of the amendments that empowering had submitted i see the ones in the actual rules, you know, have been reflected for for the plan submittal guidelines i'm supportive of it >> commissioners, if you adapt the rules and regulars p that will become part or part of the process and the planning director can include those. i'd like to address a couple of those suggestions in her that
you've - okay in any case if you choose to adapt those changes we can modify the plan for the guidelines documents >> would that be a separate process than the item we're taking today or look at the rules and instructions. >> your adapting them by reference the commission would be adapting the submittal guidelines the department uses by reference and the department issues those plans. >> okay. >> i'm sorry go ahead. >> so the plans are for the submittal guidelines i'm trying to understand your process what's our really to making amendments. >> i guess the way it would work we certainly tack your
recommendations and change the guidelines and you adapt them by reference. >> okay. >> they're adopted by reference in appreciation a and any reference to the submittal guidelines would be referenced by your rules and regulation. >> okay. i also want to sort of touch open this point of the one week vs. the two weeks. i think, you know, planning commission very much runs on a weekly schedule it's a lot of material for the commissioners and public but i want to say the process is available as we discussed today to e-mail the planning commission secretary and have the comments described for the commissioners. i'll be honest for me if i get a
document for 2 weeks i won't read it because it's hard to keep two weeks agenda on your mind at the same time >> commissioner moore. >> i interrupted commission secretary and i'll direct the question back to you. as i said this doesn't apply to drs but it requires per reference to the conditional use in section c-111 and the notifications that might result in a dr that doesn't mean we're adding additional work to staff but requires that the applicant provide you either for the abbreviated dr which still comes to us as well as the full dr to
provide the referendum so there's nothing that makes the staff work for difficult it makes a easier. so none of it singles out dr because the director has clearly said the problems but it refers more generally back to the conditional use and the notifications so it's really a middle reminder within the document to reference those two 3 conditions in order to have indeed that consistent documentation and material for the commission. the real intent really is many of us are lay people and we're finding ourselves liquor the 2 to 3 weekers that's
uncomfortable and we can ask for more information. i really don't feel good when i have to call it out it's not a victory to send somebody back and say your stuff doesn't add up we can be more clear >> i want to thank you commissioner moore for stepping forward and extending a tremorly amount of time. some of us don't have your background so thank you for better clarify this. in the end it will help the commissioners and staff and a commissioner antonini >> yeah i appreciate what commissioner moore is saying and if i understand correctly i'm happy with the rules and regulations as drafted. by reference they live staff will modify the instructions to
reflect what's in our rolls but to have our rules voluminous they speak to the issues we're concerned about i agree one hundred percent with commissioner moore when cases come before us and the drawings are not accurate and we have to waste everybody's time sending it back to be redone didn't make sense but i think that's the job of staff once we've pit those rules forward and made it clear for our submissions package the planner has to make sure before it's clarptd for us and that they review the what's been submitted by the project sponsor or the dr requester in the case of dr that it is unsatisfactory
what we're asking for. i'm fine with this assuming we'll get the instructions created by reference. we don't have to spell that out. i'll move to approve those changes >> commissioner antonini before you do the city attorney has a few minor changes. so appendix a section a for submittals the third paragraph the city attorney is recommending that the correspondence must include a copy to the commission secretary striking cc and the fourth paragraph the briefs to be included in the packet forward to the mragsz and striking would like to be a part of. in the fifth paragraph the
guidelines shall be recyclely - strictly enforced. and under section 3 subsection by the opposing opposition not to exceed 3 minutes the city attorney wants the block is to reduce the number of overall speakers who are part of opposition striking the similar concerns. under section g for about sequa appeals. the addition of sequa appeals of negative declaration is recommended by the district attorney's office and i'm agreeing with all of those suggested changes. so my motion would be to approve
reflecting the changes as suggested by the city attorney and read into the record by the commission secretary >> second. >> can i ask a question. >> commissioner moore. >> the city attorney on the last point give us one or two sentences so i fully understand. >> the portion of sequa regarding the desolations. >> i'm kate from the district attorney's office. commissioner moore the only sequa appeal that comes to the planning commission is that of a negative declaration so it was really for clarification purposes that it optional will be triggered when there's a negative declaration appeal. eirs come automatically for certification and exemptions are part of the project approval that don't have a specific
appeal process to the planning commission >> thank you for relatedly us. >> commissioners there are a motion and second as intrord on that motion. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu. and president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero. now that you've done that you can tape our 2014 consent calendar. the hearings scheduled for the 2014 proposed meeting dates. commissioners i've provide you with a draft hearing schedule for 2014. january 2nd has been cancelled as a result of this hearing
schedule but it will appear here. january 30th is a fifth thursday of the month and you generally cancel those hearings. on thursday may 29 is a fifth thursday. july 3rd is cancelled for the jout. july 31st is a fifth thursday and you generally tack a hi, ate in the last two weeks of august. and then there's the holiday for thursday september 25th i believe it's rancho an that's being recked and october 30th is scheduling cancelled it's a fifth meeting. and thursday, november 30th is thanksgiving and christmas is
cancelled and january 1st for new years eve. i would recommend you cancelled an additional meeting between january 30th and may 29 you'll have a four month stretch without any breaks. march 27 falls in there but there's an item that needs to be heard for you. april 1st is april fools bay day and we have easter >> okay. and just for not that it is important but commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to be out the 16 and libel the 23rd. >> of january. >> of january. >> okay. did you have any other comments
and i did have other comments i didn't know if you're going to tack public comment before we comment but i'll be happy to comment first whatever >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. >> i don't know if you wanted public comment first. >> a point of clarification. i don't know about the secretary but those items people were commenting before we i feel like our items we comment before the public they can then over comments after us. we tack public comment and then we spank and they haven't had the benefit of commenting >> commissioners it's entirely up to you. but, yes the public should a have is an opportunity to public >> i did it both ways but i was
expecting comments that might influence our discussion. so i hear i. let me see first mlk for the proposed calendar 2014 >> so public comment is closed. >> there's some days i want to add back for the following reasons. the 30th of january because it's the fourth thursday that we're meeting it's technically the first sthurz we're optional meeting 4 times that month and typically the new year things pickup and we've been successful getting out off our meeting so i want to condense this. i'm not proposed to some sort of
break in april in the commission feels they need to do that the 17th or the third or both probably okay with me. but then i would also think for the same reason in the month of july we should add back the 31st it's only the fourth thursday of that month because we're off the 3rd of july because of the fourth of july holiday and when we get into august we've got the hi, at the so there might be a back up of items. i assume the secretary has chaekd checked that the 25th of september is in fact the first day of rancho an. so and then also the possibility might be to consider adding the 30th of october sthoo we don't
have to as we get to the end of the year our calendar gets more con depsz and we have 3 non-month to month days in november and december. i'm not as emphatic but adding the 30th of january and the 31st of july make sense >> just if i may add commissioners, i generally tack you basically have the 11 cancelled hearings per calendar year. >> on average. >> on average. >> so that means you the tenth. >> commissioner sugaya. >> oh, sorry. i would suggest we tack some time off somewhere in the four months. it doesn't matter at the end of
march or april. other than i'm okay with the schedule >> in response to that caring or considering the four month stretch i'd like to say that i'm trying to keep track of fortune absence on january 23rd that commissioner antonini maybe out i know i'm going to be out on the 23rd of january. on 16 of january commissioner hillis and commissioner antonini will be out. commissioner borden >> i have a question i'm looking our advance calendar as we know in terms of of case numbers and all that kind of stuff. so right now it doesn't hallow we have much on the calender we
could add back the january 31st meeting. there's only 1 or 2 items unless i understand the caseload we need to schedule back a meeting. so again although i don't have a problem having that hearing or if all the cases that are assigned to the 23rd won't be advisable to move to the 23rd to the 30th that would be an advantage because two commissioners are out on the 23rd. that makes sense in our bar remote and maybe i can give me feedback open the ability the ease of moving the items from
the 23rd to the 30th and a or some of them >> i'm looking at the 23rd calendar there are 3 items that were continued from previous dates and if you choose to basically cancel the 23rd. >> i'm not suggesting that but if there's a concern i'm saying to move from them from the 23rd to the 30th. >> those noticed would be challenged and generally they only go out 20 days in advance and the told me that were continued to january 23rd we could continue them to the 30th again. so that's internal up to you. >> i could go for